Notes & Questions (People v. Knoller)

 Notes and Questions

1.      Aftermath. In 2019, Marjorie Knoller became eligible for parole and was subsequently denied. The parole board will decide on her parole status again in 2022. Knoller’s husband, Robert Noel, served four years for involuntary manslaughter and died in June 2018 in a La Jolla nursing home.^[1]

2.      Test Your Thinking. Based on the law set out in the case, applied to the facts of the case, should Knoller be convicted of 2nd degree murder or should the conviction be mitigated to a lesser offense? Explain your reasoning.

3.      Implied Malice. In its discussion, the court attempts to clarify implied malice—defined as “abandoned and malignant heart” in the applicable California statute—by emphasizing that the defendant must act with an awareness that the act endangers human life and must have a conscious disregard for life. Should depraved heart killings should always be considered less culpable than intentional killings?

4.      Professional Responsibility. Recall that Knoller was more than just a layperson: she was an attorney. Did she have any heightened responsibility in her actions?

              California attorneys are subject to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the State Bar of California and approved by the Supreme Court of California in order to promote the administration of justice, protect the public, and uphold the integrity of the legal system.^[2] These rules establish standards of professional conduct for lawyers that, when violated, act as a basis for discipline.

             Lawyers are also bound by applicable law, including the State Bar Act (Business and Professions Code section 6000 et seq.); bound by opinions of California courts; and are advised to consult the opinions of ethics committees in California.^[3] So, when an attorney commits a criminal act, they may be in violation of an applicable Penal Code section and subject to punishment under criminal law, and they may also be in violation of Rule 8.4(b)^[4] of the Rules of Professional Conduct and subject to discipline under the applicable Business and Professions Code sections.

            A conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude—and in fact any act involving moral turpitude—constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension^[5] by the California Supreme Court,^[6] which often accords great weight to the recommendation of discipline by the California State Bar.^[7] Moral turpitude has been defined as an act of “baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a [person] owes to...society” and as an act “contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”^[8] Unsurprisingly, murder constitutes an act of moral turpitude.^[9] However, it is important to recognize that other misconduct, even that not involving moral turpitude, may lead to discipline. For example, one attorney was placed on disciplinary probation for three years after being convicted on two occasions of driving under the influence (under Vehicle Code section 23152).^[10]

           To get an idea of other misconduct and the disciplinary measures taken, students can view discipline summaries based on orders listed on the California State Bar website.^[11]

5.      LGBT Rights and Wrongful Death. Reckless action such as Knoller’s can lead not only to criminal charges, but to recovery for the victim’s spouse via the tort of “wrongful death.”

            Sharon Smith, Diane Whipple’s partner, became an activist for the LGBT community. Along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and attorney Michael Cardoza, Smith paved the way for same-sex partners to be able to sue for wrongful death.^[12]

6.      Further Reading: For further reading on this case, check out: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/mad-dogs-lawyers-70753/ and  http://www.nclrights.org/in-memoriam-diane-alexis-whipple/.